Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:53 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -1 to preferring upgrades.  FL is about 'stability', which is an
> explicit non-goal for FC.  Except in cases where a backport is more
> likely to create instability than an upgrade, we should prefer
> backporting.
> 

Sure, for RHL it is about stability.  But with FC it was more about
extending the lifespan.  And to me, it really doesn't make sense to
change the way in which the Fedora Project treats a release just because
a different set of folks are touching it.

I'm trying to establish a scenario where the Fedora Project as a whole
has a certain lifespan for a Fedora (core+extras) release.  An end user
really shouldn't care how the updates are generated, just that they are
published and announced in the same spaces, and that the content of said
updates.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20060515/0d8c7c5f/attachment.sig>